21-10-2019, 08:08 AM
(This post was last modified: 21-10-2019, 08:23 AM by Aga Tentakulus.)
Other anomalies can be seen as the forger overdoing his job, resulting in an object that is "truer than truth". The worm holes that appear in f1 are absent in f2, but worms do not stop at one page. The forger decided he needed to also add worm holes to his repertoire of signs of authenticity. In his game, by stopping at the first page, he also provided a hint to forgery.
The statement of the worm is not on page f2r, therefore a fake should be considered. This statement is wrong !
The worm was on page f2r, it just did not come through the parchment. The traces of eating can be seen.
The food stops only with sheet f8.
Further on f1 you can see the shades in the spot. One can see at the bright places where the worm was, but also not through the parchment.
The bright path also tells me that the worm was active after the stain and eroded some signs.
This means that the writing Tepenec was possibly already blurred before the worm.
Sorry, I'm not really on top of the quoting yet.
Marco P wrote at #23...... at. ** Edmond Locard and the psychology of forgery **
The statement of the worm is not on page f2r, therefore a fake should be considered. This statement is wrong !
The worm was on page f2r, it just did not come through the parchment. The traces of eating can be seen.
The food stops only with sheet f8.
Further on f1 you can see the shades in the spot. One can see at the bright places where the worm was, but also not through the parchment.
The bright path also tells me that the worm was active after the stain and eroded some signs.
This means that the writing Tepenec was possibly already blurred before the worm.
Sorry, I'm not really on top of the quoting yet.
Marco P wrote at #23...... at. ** Edmond Locard and the psychology of forgery **